I had a thought.

[two dogs]

Originally Posted by the_gelf

...
It's a dismal future for astrophysicists and astronomers in 30 billion years, where nothing outside of our supergalaxy (Andromeda+Milky Way) can ever be seen.
...

And interestingly, assuming that they've only recently come into existence (as we're unlikely to have survived that long), putting them in the position of thinking that the local galaxy is all that there is, as was thought less than a century ago. However, unlike us now, they won't be able to discover that that's not so.

[Xeno]

Originally Posted by two dogs

And interestingly, assuming that they've only recently come into existence (as we're unlikely to have survived that long), putting them in the position of thinking that the local galaxy is all that there is, as was thought less than a century ago. However, unlike us now, they won't be able to discover that that's not so.

We could always write a book for them

[two dogs]

Originally Posted by Xeno

We could always write a book for them

But would they believe it?

[cjhimaa]

This is what I have come up with, watching some of Lawrence Krauss's talks on 'youtube'.
By adding gravity to empty space 'Dark energy', it is possible to bring about the beginnings of a universe. A closed universe where 'Dark energy' is less than matter. Inturn the matter cools and becomes stars and galaxies. As the universe expands the 'Dark energy' grows and the universe appears to flatten. The larger the universe grows the quicker it expands and more 'Dark energy' fills the voids between matter. Eventually, all matter in the universe will be alone surrounded by empty space........... and by adding gravity, it is possible to bring about the beginnings of a universe. Krauss even talks of a possible multiverse, which I have already eluded to in a previous post. The only thing Krauss didn't do was tie or should I say, say was that the beginning of our universe may have come about from 'Dark energy' left behind by a previous universe.
explanation: a 'Closed universe' appearing to be a 'Flat universe'. A 'Closed universe would be like a sphere expanding outwards in all directions. you can see the curve on the outside of a ball, even a hot air balloon. The Earth seems to be flat, but even this you can see the curve if you have a clear enough view. Would you be able to see the curve of the surface of a sphere the size of the sun if you were standing on it, of cause not, it would appear to be flat. Now take the size of the universe, and using the triangle theory, how big would it need to be, before it would show any sign of distortion? 5million, 10million, a billion light years, in height. Any measurement we are able to do, at this time, would appear that the universe is flat. Just because of the vastness of the universe.

[Goldenmane]

I don't want to discourage you, but I feel kinda honour-bound to point out once more, and maybe more clearly, that the physicists doing this work are actually operating largely in the realm of mathematics. If you don't grasp the maths involved, you probably won't really have much to add to the conversation.

I'm not trying to be a prick here. I actually have more of a physics background than most, and yet still find some of this shit baffling.

[cjhimaa]

Goldenmane, I haven't actually said anything to disagree with Lawrence Krauss. I had a look at some of his work, came up with some hypothesis of my own and found out from further research that Lawrence Krauss had already came up with the same verdict. The difference is he has science and mathmatics to prove it and I have him.
I am guessing from what you wrote you either haven't read his book or listened to his speaches or you haven't understood.

[Goldenmane]

Originally Posted by cjhimaa

Goldenmane, I haven't actually said anything to disagree with Lawrence Krauss. I had a look at some of his work, came up with some hypothesis of my own and found out from further research that Lawrence Krauss had already came up with the same verdict. The difference is he has science and mathmatics to prove it and I have him.
I am guessing from what you wrote you either haven't read his book or listened to his speaches or you haven't understood.

Maybe.

Or maybe my point was so valid as to be ironical.

[Glob]

Xeno gave a good explanation of what it means for a universe to be "flat". For now, forget notions of the universe being like a pancake.

The curvature of the universe (flat, open or closed) is related to how much matter is in the universe. If there is enough matter to counteract the inertia associated with the expansion of space, then the universe is closed and it will eventually collapse in on itself (Big Crunch). If there is not enough matter in the universe, then the universe is open and it will expand forever at essentially the same rate (Big Freeze). If there is just the right amount of matter to counteract the inertia associated with the expansion of space, then expansion of the universe will expand forever at a continually decelerating rate (Big Freeze). However, these scenarios do not take dark energy into account. When dark energy is taken into account, a closed universe can end in a Big Freeze, and flat and open universes can end in a Big Rip.

Light travels in straight lines only in a universe with flat curvature. Therefore, if we can determine that light travels in straight lines, then we can get an idea of what the ultimate fate of the universe will be. Measurements of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation show that light travels in straight lines. Therefore, the evidence suggest that the universe is flat, and that there will not be a Big Crunch.


As for the question of getting something from 'nothing', I don't think there is any such thing absolute nothingness. As Krauss has pointed out, the potential for something is something. If there is not even the potential for something, then there must always be nothing. Since there is something, there must have always been at least the potential for something, which is something in itself.